Sandtown changes do not end workThe transformation of...

Letters

August 11, 1996

Sandtown changes do not end work

The transformation of Baltimore's Sandtown-Winchester neighborhood began as an ache and a hope in the heart of Jim Rouse more than six years ago. During his lifetime, Jim touched and reshaped Baltimore City in many ways, but the rebuilding of Sandtown-Winchester was, by his own admission, the most important work of his life. It was to this endeavor that he dedicated the last years of his life.

Jim believed ardently in the people of Sandtown and their ability to right what was wrong in their community. He spent many hours walking those streets, attending meetings and imbuing everyone he met with his "can do" spirit.

The Enterprise Foundation was behind Jim every step of the way, helping raise more than $14.8 million in local and national funding. These funds have been used to help create a new elementary school curriculum, provide teacher retraining, create a new health care consortium of five local providers, provide more than 1,000 new and renovated homes and help the resident-led Community Building in Partnership (CBP) fund and oversee many programs. Additional community organizing efforts have led to a 20 percent drop in violent crime.

There are many examples of progress but much more remains to be done. The recent change in Enterprise staff in Sandtown was carefully planned and an indication of progress and continuity. CBP is, as planned, assuming a larger role in the continuation of the Sandtown-Winchester program. Pat Costigan, Enterprise point person there, had planned his own personal transition before Jim Rouse became ill. He stayed on at our request and helped us select a successor.

We are delighted with the work that Ronica Houston has been doing at CBP where local residents are working hard on programs that will shape the future of their community. And we look forward to the arrival of Joan Thompson, who was selected following a national search, to head up our Neighborhood Transformation office in Baltimore.

F. Barton Harvey III

Columbia

The writer is the chairman of the Enterprise Foundation.

Marine right of ways different from roads

Ginny Phillips' July 27 letter seems ironic in its message promoting safer boating habits, while at the same time displaying a lack of knowledge of marine right of ways.

She makes several statements that compare marine right of ways to being "the same as the rules of the road on I-95." If one can imagine I-95 being a huge expanse of asphalt stretching out in every direction, with cars, motorcycles, tractor trailers and bicycles traveling in all directions at different speeds, then it is clear that this analogy does not hold water.

The Inland Navigation Rules are written so that any given vessel in any situation will either be "burdened" or "stand on." The pecking order for this design places power-driven boats at the very bottom, since they have greater control and maneuverability.

Sailboats operate at speeds that are generally in the range of 6 to 8 knots, and are susceptible to wind shifts and sudden loss of power (wind). At the same time, there are situations in which a vessel under sail must yield to a power-driven vessel. The true menace on the waterways are boat operators who do not have adequate training and understanding of these rules.

Sailors do not raise their sails merely to achieve the right of way. If a sailboat is under auxiliary power, then it must follow the same rules as any power-driven vessel, sails or no sails. A sailor will often "motor-sail" with the mainsail up to achieve greater speed and to add stability in choppy seas. This is quite common and also quite legal.

Ms. Phillips continues her essay on the victimization of power boaters by placing the blame of a recent accident on the marine police. As I have personally witnessed dangerous situations created by inept or downright drunken power-boaters and jet skiers traveling at incredible speeds, I would have to say that the priorities of the marine police are right on target.